If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I have to seriously doubt the whole 12% further notion for baseballs. If you stop and think about that for a second the ramifications of a liveball increasing flight distance by 12% is mindboggling.

Another thing is 12% with respect to what? The 1980s? The 1970? Certainly not the 1920s-30s. I guess people forget how they changed the ball in that era. That's what drove all those 50-60 HR, 160+ RBI, and .303 league wide averages.

That means that 380 foot homer was aided by 41 feet because of the ball. That means that sluggers today on their own are only capable of getting to about the middle of the outfield on most of their drives. A 400 foot shot was aided by about 45 feet because of the ball then, meaning using a different ball it would have only traveled 355 feet! So somehow modern players have gotten weaker when it comes to hitting the ball then players 85 years ago.

Don't you know that Ruth and company were the greatest and strongest power hitters of all time? Don't you know that it is not posssble for someone today to hit that ball as far as Ruth? That is sheer blasphemy!

I haven't seen the study so I have no real way of rebutting it. But most of the studies are severely flawed in that they generally measure and "old" ball vs. a new ball and yes of course the newer ball travels further. What I would like to see is a university like Penn to do a 10 year study in which they measure the characteristics of the ball of say 2007 in 2007. Then do the same thing in 2008, measure the 2008 ball, then in 2009 measure the 2009 ball, so on and so on, until you get 10 years worth a data or 20 years of data or so on. Because as far as I know that is not what we are getting. We are getting people in 2000 measuring balls from 1990 or 1975 or 1995 or whatever and that has a bias in it for several reasons.

The problem with this is we don't kow how a ball deteriorates over time. A baseball is made of organic materials that absolutely change over a time. Would a ball of say 1950 have the same springiness as it did back then? Your idea of testing old balls year after years is a great idea. It would show how a ball deteriorates over time.

Ubi: Yes it is mindboggling. However, so is the absurd team home run numbers posted after introduction of the new baseball in 1996 (or possibly in the later portion of 1995). Prior to 1996 the single season team home run record was 240 set by the 61 Yankees, which was a dramatic increase over any previous season. The main factor for that dramatic increase in 61 was a then unique combination of diluted pitching due to expansion, increased schedule, exceptional personnel on the Yankess squad, along with the short right field porch.

However, in 1996 the increase in home runs was not just dramatic it was in fact mindboggling In the American League in 1996, 3 teams broke the seemingly invulnerable Yankee team record for homeruns in one season. Baltimore hit 257, Seattle 245, and Oakland 243. Not to mention 221 from Texas, 218 from Cleveland, 209 from Boston, 204 from Detroit, etc.

The last full season before the strike, 1993, Baltimore had hit only 157 as a team, Seattle 161 and Oakland 158.

I think its pretty clear that balls that would have been caught for outs in seasons past were now carrying over the fences. That's likely why Brady Anderson who had hit only 16 climbed to 50.

I know you like to express skeptism on everything, as you did the other day when you claimed to be skeptical that Hornsby would have known that he was hitting .400 going into the last game of the 1921 season. I would think that baseball's establishment and those players who cheat must love your type of skeptism, which means they can get away with anything unless they confess on national television, and even then no doubt there would still be skeptics.

c JRB

First off I simply asked did Rogers Hornsby know he was at .400. I didn't say I doubted he knew, it was a question I did not know the answer too. SEcondly what I did doubt was the notion that Hornsby was some sort of gamer who didn't care about his stats. Or I should say I doubted that specific example as proof that he didn't care about his stats.

AS to the homers yeah I don't believe it because if it is indeed true that baseballs are flying 12% further then how come players are not hitting 600 foot homers? How come basically two guys on drugs are the only ones who can hit 450 ft+ homers? A guy who can hit a 450 foot homer with a different ball means that he should be hitting 500 foot bombs with the new ball. So if some slugger from 1996 had instead hit the same pitch in say 1989 instead of going 400 feet it would have gone only 355 feet? I don't buy it. Secondly I don't believe it because most studies of baseballs are flawed for reasons I stated above.

Am I wrong in looking at the drawing of Old Yankee Stadium that Ruth played in and seeing that RCF is only 350 feet away? Many high schools in our league have fences 10 or 20 feet deeper in RCF.

Nothing wrong at all, I'm looking not only at the whole Yankee Stadium but all the other AL parks in the time Ruth played. Thats what was brought up, the parks at that time and in recent years and what part they might play in home run hitting.

I don't see an accurate evaluation without looking at all parks. I've stuck mostly with the right side since Ruth the lefty is included in the discussion.

It's the distances in CF that have the biggest gap. Those NL parks in 1998 were almost 40 feet shorter on average. Ruth did hit a good number to RF and the power alley but it stands to reason he hit a good number to CF that would have been home runs in most of todays parks.

Unfortunately many on the board (there were some who did) did not go over hundreds of game recaps from the news archives. I did and I think if some others did they would see that Ruth was hitting balls out of sight routinely, balls that would be home runs in just about any park, that includes a good number to right field.

I never said Ruth, Foxx and some of the other great sluggers from the past did not have some conditions favorable to them but it's a two way street todays hitters have somethings going for them in the home run discussion.

Today's fields are easier to hit out of, but not to the extend that many here think IMO.

"Ruth lost FAR more home runs to the cavernous fields he played in than he ever gained on short porches." - I really don't think I can agree with this. Any reading or study on this you could point me to where I could get a better understanding of this point of view?

I'd say the best and most current study substantiating this position, Westlake, is Bill Jenkinson's book. Chapter 11 on Ruth's Home Run Spray Charts shows "the approximate landing points of every official home run hit by Babe Ruth, plus, the landing points of extra base hits, fly outs, and foul homers, that would result in home runs under modern conditions."

In summary:

Ruth gained no homers at all from any "porch shots" at Fenway, but lost about 37 homers due to the historically longer fences. (Please note that the diagram of Fenway I provided above is not entirely accurate in its reflection of the right field dimensions Ruth faced - in his day Fenway's right field was actually about 25 feet further, or 400ft.)

At the Polo Grounds, he gained 6 total homers at the porch, and lost 30 elsewhere inside the park.

At Yankee Stadium, he gained 32 total (over 12 years) and lost 120.

At Away games, he gained a total of 13, and lost 195.

*This is my counting of the spray locations, Westlake, and may or may not be off a bit, but it's a good approximation of how Ruth fared at the old ballparks.

I wish I had the stadium shapes and a good drawing program... this seems a lot easier to do than the area calculation.

This is one sight that has shapes, not photos and also has a feature that gives different park configurations in different years with a simple cursor click on the time period desired. As for the drawing program no help on that one. I have ADOBE and can do quite a bit but not an overlay of one park over another. One of the members may be able to help.

Going to try and insert this sightas a hyperlink but have never done this, not with a website. In case it does not come through in hyperlink the site is called
CLEMS BASEBALL~HOME PLATE

The powers who run Major League Baseball had already rigged the game to produce more home runs.

The juiced baseball that travels 12% further, the new condensced strike zone, etc. were obviously all done with the connivance of the owners. Homeruns are exciting. They no doubt reckoned that more home runs would bring more fans and generate more revenue for themselves, and they were right.

However, they made these changes surreptitiously without telling the fans that they were doing it. I think a lot of fans were duped into believing that what they were seeing was for real. The Baseball owners, like a bunch of slick grifters, basically perpetrated a hoax on a large segment of the American public. I believe that all those new team home run records that suddenly emerged in 1996, and the the unexpected power surgees of non sluggers such as Brady Anderson are directly attributable to these calculated manipulations of the owners, and have little or nothing to do with steroids.

However, just as the owners were greedy, there were also a number of players who were not willing to simply count their blessings at all the new gift home runs generated by the surreptitious changes put in place by the owners. These players sought an even further edge by use of steroids, corked bats, etc. Hence the onslaught of McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, et al. In some ways, I think the owners are actually grateful for the distraction of these steroid allegations. It appears to shift the blame for all the absurd inceases in home run numbers on some cheating players, when in reality it was the "cheating owners" who instigated this mess. Steroids are almost a red herring. The investigations should have begun with the owners and the commissioner, before getting around to individual players.

How would the most talented hitter in baseball, Babe Ruth, have faired in this environment? Face it, if a rather ordinary hitter like Brady Anderson can hit 50 homeruns under the new set of circustances created by the owners, I don't see how anybody can rationally believe that a talent of Ruth's magnitude would not have been able to hit at least 70 or more home runs In short, I believe he would have more than likely been able to best the current record of 73 without resort to steroids.

There has been some talk about Ruth's 60 homeruns being the touchstone. Actually, I am even more impressed by the 29 home runs that Ruth hit in 1919 with Boston. It was done in the dead ball era. It was accomplished in a shortened season (The Red Sox played only 137 games that season). Ruth didn't play a full season as a regular as he was a pitcher for a portion of the season. Ruth hit almost three times as many home runs as anybody else in the he league, as the next highest player had only 10.

Since Ruth's emergence as a slugger over 80 years, the history of many of the changes in baseball's rules and equipment might be best summed up as one prolonged attempt to alter conditions so as to artifically enable other players to be able to emulate what only Babe Ruth was able to do naturally.

c JRB

I wholeheartedly agree, JRB, though we may differ on the exact impact of PED's. I do think they impact performance and longevity significantly.

With concern to the new balls, they have not only been "juiced" in a manner that creates more resiliency and longer hits, they also significantly restrict a pitcher's grip and ability to get more movement. Yet another factor that has fueled the offensive explosion. I've heard that, since the URI Forensic Science study, and ensuing Lively Ball Colloquium, there have some changes, but MLB's heavy secrecy on these matters make that difficult to determine.

Today's fields are easier to hit out of, but not to the extend that many here think IMO.

"Ruth lost FAR more home runs to the cavernous fields he played in than he ever gained on short porches." - I really don't think I can agree with this. Any reading or study on this you could point me to where I could get a better understanding of this point of view?

I'd say the best and most current study substantiating this position, Westlake, is Bill Jenkinson's book. Chapter 11 on Ruth's Home Run Spray Charts shows "the approximate landing points of every official home run hit by Babe Ruth, plus, the landing points of extra base hits, fly outs, and foul homers, that would result in home runs under modern conditions."

In summary:

Ruth gained no homers at all from any "porch shots" at Fenway, but lost about 37 homers due to the historically longer fences. (Please note that the diagram of Fenway I provided above is not entirely accurate in its reflection of the right field dimensions Ruth faced - in his day Fenway's right field was actually about 25 feet further, or 400ft.)

At the Polo Grounds, he gained 6 total homers at the porch, and lost 30.

At Yankee Stadium, he gained 32 total (over 12 years) and lost 120.

At Away games, he gained a total of 13, and lost 195.

*This is my counting of the spray locations, Westlake, and may or may not be off a bit, but it's a good approximation of how Ruth fared at the old ballparks.

With concern to the new balls, they have not only been "juiced" in a manner that creates more resiliency and longer hits, they also significantly restrict a pitcher's grip and ability to get more movement. Yet another factor that has fueled the offensive explosion. I've heard that, since the URI Forensic Science study, and ensuing Lively Ball Colloquium, there have some changes, but MLB's heavy secrecy on these matters make that difficult to determine.

The ball, always a touchy subject, difficult to prove any point. I did see some results from some testing at Rhode Island University that showed balls from balls from the 1990s had an over the limit amount of synthetic material in the wool windings, compared to some 1970s balls. No way to tell if that made the 1990s balls any livelier.
It's speculated that this was not by design. More synthetic materials in recent years has been used in making carpets where some of the wool is gathered from.

As for the outside the cover and the seams, in the early 1990s a number of pitchers said the seams were lower and the cover felt tighter, slicker making it more difficult to get "stuff" on the balls. Two former pitchers Jim Palmer and Dave Stewart commented on the balls. Both agreed the seams did feel lower than when they were active. Palmer said he noticed the cover seemed tighter. He did say that there seemed to be more uniformity in the ball after examining a dozen or more. He said when he was pitching he would ask the ump for another ball until he got one that he felt had a looser cover, one that he could almost put a wrinkle in, that one he could grip better.

So it could be MLB did nothing to the ball deliberately. Could be a change in the material used in the wool and improvements in the manufacturing of the ball, more uniform cover.

I notiice I don't see pitchers tossing balls to the ump asking for a different ball, not as often as years ago. I can recall going back some years pitchers at times tossing a couple of few balls back to the ump until they got one that felt good to them.

Nothing wrong at all, I'm looking not only at the whole Yankee Stadium but all the other AL parks in the time Ruth played. Thats what was brought up, the parks at that time and in recent years and what part they might play in home run hitting.

I don't see an accurate evaluation without looking at all parks. I've stuck mostly with the right side since Ruth the lefty is included in the discussion.

It's the distances in CF that have the biggest gap. Those NL parks in 1998 were almost 40 feet shorter on average. Ruth did hit a good number to RF and the power alley but it stands to reason he hit a good number to CF that would have been home runs in most of todays parks.

Unfortunately many on the board (there were some who did) did not go over hundreds of game recaps from the news archives. I did and I think if some others did they would see that Ruth was hitting balls out of sight routinely, balls that would be home runs in just about any park, that includes a good number to right field.

I never said Ruth, Foxx and some of the other great sluggers from the past did not have some conditions favorable to them but it's a two way street todays hitters have somethings going for them in the home run discussion.

Ruth played in up to 77 games a season in the Old Yankee Stadium with the short RF porch, short RCF fence, and the out of sight distances in deep RCF and CF. Without viewing where his Yankee Stadium HR's landed, my guess is quite a few cleared the fence from the RF foul pole to RCF.

TR mentions a study that shows Ruth gained 32 home runs playing in Old Yankee Stadium, but lost 120 home runs due to the longer fence distances. This means that Ruth's power was to all fields and in Old Yankee Stadium he hit over a hundred EBH's to LF and CF that would now be home runs. So instead of 25 or 28 home runs a season in Old Yankee Stadium, Ruth should have hit 35 or 38 home runs had the park's dimensions been what they are today.

Do we really know exactly where his EBH's landed and what are we basing it on?

Ruth played in up to 77 games a season in the Old Yankee Stadium with the short RF porch, short RCF fence, and the out of sight distances in deep RCF and CF. Without viewing where his Yankee Stadium HR's landed, my guess is quite a few cleared the fence from the RF foul pole to RCF.

TR mentions a study that shows Ruth gained 32 home runs playing in Old Yankee Stadium, but lost 120 home runs due to the longer fence distances. This means that Ruth's power was to all fields and in Old Yankee Stadium he hit over a hundred EBH's to LF and CF that would now be home runs. So instead of 25 or 28 home runs a season in Old Yankee Stadium, Ruth should have hit 35 or 38 home runs had the park's dimensions been what they are today.

Do we really know exactly where his EBH's landed and what are we basing it on?

There's some approximation, Tony, but Jenkinson's book provides multiple sources for every 1921 HR and projected HR. These primary sources are provided within the body of the book, at all relevant locations, and in an addendum entitled "Sources." In all cases where he approximates the landing locations of Ruth's hits, he has based that determination on multiple contemporaneous sources, from major, reputable sports journalists. His work appears to be meticuluous.

The ball, always a touchy subject, difficult to prove any point. I did see some results from some testing at Rhode Island University that showed balls from balls from the 1990s had an over the limit amount of synthetic material in the wool windings, compared to some 1970s balls. No way to tell if that made the 1990s balls any livelier.
It's speculated that this was not by design. More synthetic materials in recent years has been used in making carpets where some of the wool is gathered from.

As for the outside the cover and the seams, in the early 1990s a number of pitchers said the seams were lower and the cover felt tighter, slicker making it more difficult to get "stuff" on the balls. Two former pitchers Jim Palmer and Dave Stewart commented on the balls. Both agreed the seams did feel lower than when they were active. Palmer said he noticed the cover seemed tighter. He did say that there seemed to be more uniformity in the ball after examining a dozen or more. He said when he was pitching he would ask the ump for another ball until he got one that he felt had a looser cover, one that he could almost put a wrinkle in, that one he could grip better.

So it could be MLB did nothing to the ball deliberately. Could be a change in the material used in the wool and improvements in the manufacturing of the ball, more uniform cover.

I notiice I don't see pitchers tossing balls to the ump asking for a different ball, not as often as years ago. I can recall going back some years pitchers at times tossing a couple of few balls back to the ump until they got one that felt good to them.

I agree, Shoeless Joe, that the offensively-enhanced properties of the original prototype balls could have possibly been accidental. But choosing those new action-packed balls over traditionally less-offensive balls was definitely no accident. Don't you think the MLB rejected "deader" balls in favor of the most batter-friendly balls they could produce, within reason. They'd never go to the Superball level - much too obvious. But, something more incrementally juiced for the batter would be just the thing. And what average fan is going to pick up on the tighter windings, high-tech materials, and flatter, tighter stitching? All the average fan sees is a batting bonanza..

There's some approximation, Tony, but Jenkinson's book provides multiple sources for every 1921 HR and projected HR. These primary sources are provided within the body of the book, at all relevant locations, and in an addendum entitled "Sources." In all cases where he approximates the landing locations of Ruth's hits, he has based that determination on multiple contemporaneous sources, from major, reputable sports journalists. His work appears to be meticuluous.

Thanks TR. With all the newspaper coverage back then I'm sure every home run he hit or long hit he made in Yankee Stadium were noted by someone. Just as Barry Bonds' home runs will be analyzed once he retires and all sorts of conclusions made.

Actually, TR, and this has been brought up before, we are not necessarily seeing a batting bonanza, but rather a home run bonanza. A batting bonanza would mean that run scoring is at an all-time high, and it's actually lower than it was in Ruth's day.

Actually, TR, and this has been brought up before, we are not necessarily seeing a batting bonanza, but rather a home run bonanza. A batting bonanza would mean that run scoring is at an all-time high, and it's actually lower than it was in Ruth's day.

Semantics, perhaps, AF. It's a batting bonanza, where a large majority of the hits happen to go over the fence - because the fences have been moved in. So, it's a home run bonanza within a batting bonanza. Besides, batting bonanza is so much more alliterative.

P.S. Don't ask me how the Cartwrights, all mounted and ready to ride, got down on the infield. I just don't know.

I wholeheartedly agree, JRB, though we may differ on the exact impact of PED's. I do think they impact performance and longevity significantly.

With concern to the new balls, they have not only been "juiced" in a manner that creates more resiliency and longer hits, they also significantly restrict a pitcher's grip and ability to get more movement. Yet another factor that has fueled the offensive explosion. I've heard that, since the URI Forensic Science study, and ensuing Lively Ball Colloquium, there have some changes, but MLB's heavy secrecy on these matters make that difficult to determine.

No disputing that. MLB balls have very small seams. Try holding an MLB ball next to a high school or youth ball. The difference in the size of the seams is significant.

But, anyway, a point to be made here is that for all the talk of how ridiculously juiced up the game is today, something that is overlooked is that the time in which Ruth came up was a time when the game became far more juiced up than it ever has. People are constantly decrying the balls today and how the public has been fooled by a new era of offense, well, why can't the same be said about the 1920s as can be said about the era from about 1994 to the present? The 1920s and 1930s were actually the two highest run scoring decades in history-not the 1990s or the 2000s. There were more runs scored in Ruth's era than this modern era and overall batting totals were higher. Home runs were not, but overall run scoring was. And that was coming off the deadball era. If MLB really fooled the American public and that is something that should be frowned upon so much, why isn't the same attitude given to the change of the game that occured in the 1920s?

I also simply don't understand what the problem is with MLB making the game such a huge HR game. If you don't like the game, that's okay, you don't have to like a certain style of game, but I can't blame MLB in the least for what they have done. Increases in attendance throughout the history of the game have come hand in hand with increases in offense. Baseball is a business. Given that it was a very sound business decision on the part of MLB and the owners to make baseball a more offensive game. And they are right and they're making more money than ever because of it. Don't blame the owners for doing their job as owners and businessmen. Even if you don't like it, you should realize where they're coming from.

And for all these supposed rabbit balls and all this supposed crazy offense one fact remains-the supposedly "pure" game of the 1920s and 1930s was more of a hitting and run scoring "bonanza" than today's game. Where are the outcries of the integrity of the game being ruined then? I think the way baseball is played just changes from time to time-and that's a good thing that we are exposed to a different kind of game in different eras. I don't think it's bad in the least that the game is continually changing. Baseball is baseball and it's integirty isn't and won't be ruined. People today are enjoying baseball more than ever.

With the subject of this thread being how many home runs Ruth would hit today, Chris, I have focused on the comparative factors related to home runs. There is no doubt it's far easier to hit home runs in recent years than it was in Ruth's day. I agree it's been a home run bonanza.

With concern to the owners, their conduct has not been above board. That's the issue. They have repeatedly deceived the public and deny having done so. That is fraud, not good business. And one of those frauds has involved the encouragement and facilitation of (often illegal) steroid abuse. Again, not something to praise as good business. And to top it off, they pretend to have not been aware of the problem. Good business, Chris?

You haven't seen me praise anybody from the '20s for such deceit and malfaesance. I have simply praised the greatest long ball hitter that ever lived, and pointed out how he would hit even more home runs in today's game and parks.

[COLOR="Blue"]With the subject of this thread being how many home runs Ruth would hit today, Chris, I have focused on the comparative factors related to home runs. There is no doubt it's far easier to hit home runs in recent years than it was in Ruth's day. I agree it's been a home run bonanza.

I agree about home runs. If you're talking about Ruth as an overall hitter, he played in a higher run environment so the same run contribution in his era is actually worth a little less than the same one today. For just home runs though, yes, it is far, far easier to hit home runs today. And, yes, that is the subject of the thread.

With concern to the owners, their conduct has not been above board. That's the issue. They have repeatedly deceived the public and deny having done so. That is fraud, not good business.

When has MLB denied the game being more HR oriented? What do you want them to do, come out and say "this is all fake. Every HR you see hit in this era is not the same as it is in other eras". If that's fraud to you then why don't you consider it fraud that they didn't say the same thing in the 20s/30s when the game saw an even bigger percentage increase in HRs (vs. deadball) and the game had ridiculous runs scored totals and BAs (the league BAs were over .300 a few times). If this era's home runs are a fraud then why aren't those things frauds too? Are league BAs being above .280 every year when usually they were around .250 fraud to you? It's just as much a large scale increase as HRs are today. Are when the previous 48 years of baseball produced a record of 29 HRs and then all of the sudden in twos decade that gets passed probably over 100 times, if this today is fraud that might not sound a little fishy to you if you were a fan in the 20s? If this era is fraud then I think that most eras in baseball history are frauds to you because every era saw big changes in the types of numbers put up. When in the 60s all of the sudden tons of pitchers were posting sub 2 ERAs, probably far more than in the past 4 decades, is that fraud?

And one of those frauds has involved the encouragement and facilitation of (often illegal) steroid abuse.

What evidence do you have that MLB has encouraged steroid abuse? They didn't do anything about it for a long time, which they should have I agree, but I've never heard at all that they encouraged it in any way

If you like, Chris, please list all the ways you believe the MLB deceived the public in the '20s and '30s, and I'll condemn each unsavory and fraudulent act. But try to keep it connected to the subject of this thread. For instance, in advance I condemn the NL's juicing of their balls to try to compete with Babe Ruth.

I really don't want to get ensnared in the steroid debate, but I will say that to me it's plain as day that the MLB has long been aware of steroid use by ballplayers, encouraged it by refusing to timely restrict it and by its owners rewarding its usage, by lying to Congress, and on and on. You don't have to believe that, but it's obvious to me.

I'm not saying anyone deceived the public in the 20s/30s, TR. I'm also saying that no one is deceiving the public today. The game changes over time. The 20s/30s saw far more radical changes in the way the game was played and went to more extremes in terms of offensive success (run scoring) than the game has today. All that I'm saying is, if you regard the high HR totals of today as a fraud, then you should regard the offense of that era as a fraud as well. As well as the pitching numbers of the 60s. IMO, none of those things were frauds. Just changes in the way the game is played that have happened frequently in the game's history.

But, anyway, a point to be made here is that for all the talk of how ridiculously juiced up the game is today, something that is overlooked is that the time in which Ruth came up was a time when the game became far more juiced up than it ever has. People are constantly decrying the balls today and how the public has been fooled by a new era of offense, well, why can't the same be said about the 1920s as can be said about the era from about 1994 to the present?

I would say the difference is that in the 1920's we knew what took place. The ball was different, possible the ball was changed in 1919. That one we can't be sure of but there were two other important changes in the game that swung the balance the hitters way.

Trick deliveries were banned, this took away one of the pitchers biggest weapons. They could not wet the ball, tobacco stain the ball, discolor it in any way making it more difficult for the batter to "pick up" the pitch.

Also very important balls were no longer left in the game for many innings. This practice came about around mid season 1920. Before than a ball could be left in the game for many innings, dirt stained, grass stained, scuffed up and having been hit several times. For some time spectators were obliged to return balls hit into the stands. Refusing meant being ejected from the park and in some cases some were even placed under arrest.

The death of Ray Chapman also played a part. It was believed that had the ball been clean and white he may have better seen the pitch.

Thats it all the reasons why the offense took of in the 1920s a different story in the early 1990s, fans wondering what took place, supposedly no major changes that we were aware of. The 1920s explosion was not questioned because we knew why it took place.

I'm not saying anyone deceived the public in the 20s/30s, TR. I'm also saying that no one is deceiving the public today. The game changes over time. The 20s/30s saw far more radical changes in the way the game was played and went to more extremes in terms of offensive success (run scoring) than the game has today. All that I'm saying is, if you regard the high HR totals of today as a fraud, then you should regard the offense of that era as a fraud as well. As well as the pitching numbers of the 60s. IMO, none of those things were frauds. Just changes in the way the game is played that have happened frequently in the game's history.

I find that far too laissez-faire for my tastes, especially the complete lack of responsibility for the steroid fraud. But, in any case, it seems we agree that Ruth would hit even more hone runs today than he did in his own day. So, that's an important point of agreement, especially for this thread.

I would say the difference is that in the 1920's we knew what took place. The ball was different, possible the ball was changed in 1919. That one we can't be sure of but there were two other important changes in the game that swung the balance the hitters way.

Trick deliveries were banned, this took away one of the pitchers biggest weapons. They could not wet the ball, tobacco stain the ball, discolor it in any way making it more difficult for the batter to "pick up" the pitch.

Also very important balls were no longer left in the game for many innings. This practice came about around mid season 1920. Before than a ball could be left in the game for many innings, dirt stained, grass stained, scuffed up and having been hit several times. For some time spectators were obliged to return balls hit into the stands. Refusing meant being ejected from the park and in some cases some were even placed under arrest.

The death of Ray Chapman also played a part. It was believed that had the ball been clean and white he may have better seen the pitch.

Thats it all the reasons why the offense took of in the 1920s a different story in the early 1990s, fans wondering what took place, supposedly no major changes that we were aware of. The 1920s explosion was not questioned because we knew why it took place.

Except if you read the articles of the time the ball was not changed. The leagues stated publicly that the ball was not altered. Studies came out that stated the ball was not changed. So if indeed the ball was changed they either knew and lied or found out and covered it up.

For me though the funny thing is that we sit here and discount what players did today based on balls, bats, stadiums, healthcare, etc, etc. But look at what I just quoted. You don't think people were doing the same thing in 1921? You honestly think "traditionalist" baseball fans saw the changes that took place in the early 20's as needed and beneficial?

Basically no one point in baseball is the true moment, the real moment when everything was authentic. There is no one era in baseball where one can point at and base everything else on how it compares to that one moment. There is no golden moment, there is opinions and choices but no Holy Grail.